Skip to main content

About your Search

English 223
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 223 (some duplicates have been removed)
between the office of economic work force development, the city's real estate division and dpw on this project and we have also -- they have also almost finished negotiating lease with caltrans for the lease of the space. as the park parcels are underneath the central freeway the city doesn't own them but we will enter into a 20 year lease for those parcels. the items before you are two fold. there is mou which i will address first and amendment to the park code. the mou is an interdepartmental mou between rpd, the real estate division and dpw and outlining each agency's responsibility in the creation and management of the dog and skate park as well as adjacent parking lot that will be on the site but adjacent to the park and managed by the real estate division. rpd's responsibilities under the mou are essentially to maintain and operate the skate and dog parks for the 20 year lease term. there is an identified funding source for the majority of those costs. we estimate maintenance cost at $85,000 a year. we identified 66,000-dollar a year in funding so there is a little
the saigon sandwich on it to dpw, are you aware of that menu? >> that may have been the case, again, this is processed by my staff, so maybe it was in the file, i would not know that to be the case, however, it was pointed out that there were like foods as part of the hearing process. >> so, when someone submits to dpw, does that information then go to the permit holder as well, or does it stay in -- >> right, in this case, it was presented at the hearing, so where the applicant was also involved. >> okay, thank you. >> i think i missed that, in this case, it was where the -- >> it was presented at the director's hearing. >> the menu with the saigon? >> that was my understanding. .sing is that what you're saying? >> yes, i believe so. >> is there any record of that >> i have to go back and check because obviously i had a limited file that was provided to me when they were compiling it and i wouldn't have that information with me right now from the last time i checked. >> i have another question raised by one of the public comments about the liability, the premises liability issue on
as the dpw order requirements. as to the substantive appropriateness of the position, the department is here, they have detailed siting guidelines to say where cabinets can be placed, the cabinet complies, the foot track if -- for the post office was considered, [inaudible] it's one of the busiest markets in the city, a new location was found that has less traffic, it's not in front to have post office, it complies with all of the department's detailed requirements. as to the lip, there's a photo that shows the lip, the department's letter says that it can't be fixed, what happened is we began construction, mr. yee's complaint came in, stop work order, then we were allowed to proceed and make it a faith condition, the cabinet's not turned on, it's placed there as a temporary fix until you determine the outcome of this appeal. once we either have permission to proceed, we will finish construction and grind down the lip or we will remove the cabinet and put the site back to being just a sidewalk, it's not saying the department can't be fixed, they're saying it can't be fixed until we determin
locations of this truck. the fire department, the fire marshal, the health department, and dpw all have different addresses. the dpw very own permit lists conflicting addresses both 84, second street and 49 feet northwest of the corner, 49 feet which is so confusing and we talked for a year is 92nd street that is on the dpw very own file that we just saw a half hour ago. this 90 second street makes bathroom further away no matter how you measure, the department of public health or works does not understand to tell us if they have approved it with sidewalk service or, interior. they have a statement that the sidewalk service is not allowed and it is highlighted in yellow. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for hearing our comments. can i just have it on the... please state your name. >> charlie you. could i have it on the overhead the whole time. >> so my beef with dpw is that there is a 300 foot notice requirement and they have been using the mid point for the block to draw the radius, when they should be using the mid point of the block six. what occurs is that businesses that are 5
of public works. dpw is aware of its keen role in implementing the pedestrian strategy by designing and constructing a lot of the improvements that are recommended by the strategy. our pedestrian safety efforts fall into three categories. first maintenance, second, enhancement, and helping the city develop policy so under maintenance we have the sidewalk inspection and repair program and as well as the street resurfacing. we add enhancement through repaving. the curb enhancement program and the screet scape program. in developing city policy we were participants in the citizen strategy as well as the better streets plan. in addition to federal and state grants and prop k funding our primary source of funding for the next three-five years is the 2011 road repaving and safety bond. this is a break down of the funding and you can see there is $50 million that was specifically for street scape, pedestrian and bicycle safety. the projects have been selected for that money but the pedestrian high injury corridors were used to help select those projects. it was also the first time we
of a hydro main, none were acceptable under the dpw guideline, if the commissioners have any question, i'd be happy to answer any. >> the alternative locations you just mentioned were presented by the appellant, is that not correct? >> correct. >> and did your client, at&t also present alternative locations? >> yes, absolutely. so, when we originally cutting the -- so, this cabinet has to be within 300 feet of the location, and -- >> 300 feet of what? >> of an existing equipment that at&t already has in the right-of-way, so we went out and survey and had looked for alternate location, we're required to seek a private property location, we reached out to private property owners to see if we could do that, we looked at the existing right of way, we proposed the location, we did a site walk trying to find the best location for the community in that area, came up with this location based on that detailed location. >> can these facilities be underground? >> new york city it's essentially like a lap top, you can't bury it and still have it function, it's high-tech electronic stuff, it's not ju
closely with mta and city planning in developing those projects.dpw's schedule is driven by our goals. for repaving the goal is up to 70 by the tweer 2020 and current leer we're at 65 and we're are trying to make sure to hit that target in about seven years from now. our ramp program uses the ada transition plan to help prioritize locations. the focus is on requests from the disabled, access to public facilities, and transit routes. we also recently started adding bulb outs to the projects and the first is geary boulevard and worked with mta with what intersection were getting ramps as part of the plan and add curb bulbs to that project. >> and specific to that and i don't know if you heard my opening remarks. is that evaluation -- my understanding that is happening city wide and a couple of districts and we were disappointed that it happened without the evaluation. >> i heard your opening statement. we are coordinating with the mta. the challenge is having a steady funding source. there is no funding for that. we have a capital request for that but that is the regular challenge
our resource he accordingly. both for the operation side of dpw and in general [speaker not understood] also. our performance measures were indicators, as you can see. where we are struggling the most is in the number of [speaker not understood] relinquishments, that's the red that you see. other than that, i would say the other two areas to look at are the turn around estimate times for some of our projects where last year we set goals pretty high and we have exceeded last year's goals but we haven't reached the goals that we set for ourselves. and also a number of committees, volunteer hours that we have asked a number of community groups and residents to get involved in. the other area is our response to landscaping. in 11-12 our response was 73%. we are at 80% right now, and our goal is to get to 90%. >> mr. mohammed, can you talk real quick about the red area, number of trees relinquish, we spoke about that before the hearing. maybe you can explain that in more detail. >> okay. within the city's right-of-way there's about 105,000 street trees. roughly 105,000 street trees, the dep
. this is our 8th arbor day. i will welcome mayor lee to the stage. >> thank you the dpw, the recreation department, to all of those who helped us in working today. arbor day, it is an annual celebration that we have struggled very hard to make sure this city appreciate because the trees are part of a great answer and solution to reducing carbon emissions and be sure we have greenery and beautification for our citizens. a lot of my friends celebrated chinese new years in china and this year for chinese new years, wilhelm wundt wilhelm wundt of the one of the gifts they gave to the employees is an air mask. if you don't start contributing to its purification, you don't get the kind of air like you do in san francisco. this is why trees are so important to our nature and this is what i love about the city because when it comes to our environment, we do make some serious investments, whether it's green buildings, waste management or going into electric vehicles or getting everybody to change their habits, one of the habits that we want to continue having is planting trees. and so every year
have a follow-up question that actually goes to dpw. you hold the microphone? >> i hold the microphone that way i can pull it away at any minute. [laughter] >> currently the way i understand it is whenever there is a graffiti on a -- the great majority -- and by the way, we have plagued on this issue here in san francisco. we're talking about hundreds and hundreds of buildings with this issue. basically with brick surfaces where the property owner will get a citation for the violation to remove the graffiti. they send an untrained personnel to try to do it. they are not successful and they leave a graffiti shadow behind. as far as i'm concerned on an esthetic point, it is exactly the same of the graffiti that was there before. the only difference is that you took a little bit of the pigment, but even worse. many times the personnel that tried to abate it is damaging the building, we just explained, by putting the pigment further in in that substrate. and -- or even worse, actually really dee facing the surface. when it's historical heritage buildings, there's no return unless you do a
to be honest about it. so, we're going to have him ask your question. >> yeah, this is to dpw, but how do you cite your owners? do you wait till somebody calls in a complaint or as your crews are out there cleaning up graffiti and they see graffiti on a private property, do you note that and then send them a citation, or do you just wait for the residents to complain about it? >> both. all of our staff, field staff are trained to call into our radio room whenever they see graffiti on private property. we have corridor workers that work the major commercial corridors throughout the city. they also call it in. and we also take calls from 311. >> okay, thank you, larry. and i see a bunch -- well, two hands back here. so, we're going to go ahead and have them step in and ask their questions. >> for dpw, regarding the ghosting, typically when that happens, do you have individuals that are actually trained in the removal and how to remove it properly? because based on the material that's actually being placed on the wall and the wall that -- the type of wall that is being placed on, do people just
stream and leave the streets better than the way we found it so this is in the streets bond that dpw is going to repave the streets on top of the safety network. so what looked at every single walk first intersection so within this network the planning department always identified places where there were intersections where the pedestrians, the severity, the frequency of pedestrian crashes were high, and also we had high numbers of people walking, so the crash rate is high. there is potentially to positively impact the people. we looked at all the intersections to be repaved and looked at feasible itd of doing curb extensions and et cetera and focused that money around that knowing that we needed to get our coordination together really quickly. curb extensions are really a collaboration between dpw and mta and legislating parking removal and feasibility and design and construction and then we tried to take advantage of projects under way that were outside of the high injury network so balboa street is a good example. there was a plan and not part of the network but an opportunit
, but it needs to satisfy the regulations as identified by the department -- by the dpw order. if it is a question as it relates to the various locations that was evaluated by at&t, i have to rely upon at&t's comments specifically because my understanding has been they have been working with the community, they have provided statements that they've been working with the community and there has been meetings with the community. >> you have been aware of the concerns raised by the appellant with respect to the location and so what i'm trying to understand is whether the department took into consideration other alternative locations and found those alternate locations not preferable to the one ultimately where the permit was ultimately issued, the site at issue. there is sm what of a burden in my view of the department to make an assessment as to whether alternative -- especially when you have an appellant is voicing as well as community members voicing objections to the site, so what -- you know, it troubles mre to hear that it would be driven by at&t rather than the department.
their questions. >> for dpw, regarding the ghosting, typically when that happens, do you have individuals that are actually trained in the removal and how to remove it properly? because based on the material that's actually being placed on the wall and the wall that -- the type of wall that is being placed on, do people just go out and have one particular product that they put on and expect it to come off, or is there some training that's going on to find out, okay, this is the application we need to use for this surface and this is the, you know, a different application we need to use for another surface? and how can you prevent that ghosting? because if it's still there, it's there. just because you remove the pigment doesn't mean that it's gone. and like you stated yourself, when do you say, enough is enough? because if you have an historic building and you want the graffiti removed but you have the ghost there, is it really removed? >> well, historic buildings, dpw would not be removing the graffiti. and remember also on private property, the property owner is responsible for it. dpw
and uses. the architectural team and fish has been leading this project with dpw. next i would like to call miss judy. >> welcome. i'm thrilled to be here. i'm doing a very brief presentation and i think you are going to be very excited by what you see for a supervisor tang just a little bit of history. this is one of 4 cultural centers owned by the city and that is under the auspices of the san francisco arts commission. this is a project as supervisor cohen says we've been working on with tom elliot fish and landscape designer walter hood. do you have this on your screen? or you should have the hard copy in front of you. one of the things we are really proud of on this design team is recognizing the history k place of the opera house in the context of the district. you will see in front of you the very interesting history that begins with the loaney people that live along the bay of bay view. the history of the shipyard and very interesting and important to us is the picture on the far right is a history of the racial tensions in the mid 60s. that corner you see on the right hand image i
as a volunteer for dpw. i've been a volunteer with dpw for about 10 years and a board member for about sick years. and i am actually here to nominate -- oh, before i say that, i wanted to thank all of you, by the way, for being here today for joining the conference. i'd like to thank all the people, all the organizations responsible for putting together the international conference. and thank you for visiting our city. i hope you had a great time while you're here and you will continue to explore the city this weekend. you are very lucky because we have a great, great weather. it was winter not too long ago. i think the last 24 hours, and today it's borderline between spring and summer. so, you guys lucked out on the weather. i nominated the academy university because of its commitment, long-time commitment and dedication to the beautification of san francisco. they, too, have been involved as a partner with dpw going on 10 years. they have supported the community clean team. the students and faculty come every month in large numbers to plant trees, pick up litter on the streets, and abate graffi
disagree with that. as i read the order, dpw order 180502, there was a finding that there is no evidence in the record that there was a more suitable location for the smf, so that leads me to believe that there was some consideration of other suitable locations, counsel for the permit holder has stated that there was an extensive search in this area for a more suitable location, but because of the requirements of the technology, this was the only place where it could be placed, so i actually don't see anything wrong with this permit and i would actually vote to uphold it based on dpw's findings in that order. >> i would tend to concur with commissioner hurtado. >> as may have been noted from my questions, i don't think just speaking to the concerns raised by the appellants on note, i don't think there's a notice issue here, this is a de novo hearing and we haven't had an opportunity to hear everybody including the appellant. on the question of what commissioner hurtado raised and i appreciate commissioner fung's concern with respect to the process and i wanted to find out and i heard fro
the ghost there, is it really removed? >> well, historic buildings, dpw would not be removing the graffiti. and remember also on private property, the property owner is responsible for it. dpw as a rule does not do the abatement. so, whether they are or aren't using the correct materials to remove it off of brick, it's based on who they hire or who they get to do the work. we are aware for the time when we did do t we have several different products based on the type of surface. and staff was trained at that time, but that's when we were doing abatement on private property. >> i can just help a little bit. again, from the historic building perspective, of course, private property can be historic, too. but there's a difference between, of course, when it's a public owned building or private owned building. perhaps some of it is an awareness or an education about resource he he that are available. there's a whole gamut of people available to remove graffiti, people who have never done it before, maybe they're painters but they just have access to materials and they are used to taking paint o
at in the budget process. next slide shows how we use our budget. by the various parts of dpw, the -- about 37% of our budget is in capital projects and the next largest is street environmental services which is about 17%. and then we have a few other bureaus, building repair bureau, urban forestry, street mapping and street and sewer repair, those are between 8 and 12%. and then, of course, you can see our administration is 12%. administration does cover many of the department functions, both bookkeeping, finance, computer staff and the running of the day to day agency. and [speaker not understood] requirements, we talked about tree maintenance. tree maintenance, as you can see, the initiative is a request for about $700,000 to transfer an additional 3,000 trees. as you heard from supervisor, we currently do not have any funding to transfer any tree that needs any extra work. so, trees that are being transferred are trees ready to go. >> to be clear, the tree maintenance transfer in the program are not in the budget you set forward right now submitted to the mayor's office? >> that's right. t
head quarters for chief and his command staff as well. i was there at dpw for years, we were struggling about how we were going to replace 850 bryant street and obviously with the financial rec mifms that we we can only do it in phases, only when we do this part, could we work on the courts and the jails and all of the rest of the agencies that are housed, the da and others that are housed in that very old building. today it is about the new public safety building, 700 construction jobs, thank you. union. maus plause [ applause ] for all of the contract unions. panco, and all of the designers that work on this and i notice that the police unit and the fire unit are here as well to celebrate this because they know that the workforce will be housed in more safe buildings and we mean to do that for every police and fire station. we will have to do more eastern bonds in the future, but this particular bond has at its main gem, 239 million dollars dedicated to the public safety building and we are also using that bond to work on the water system and some of the fire stations that are in wors
of all just thanks san francisco police department, fire department, dpw and everybody who has got us to this point. as we all know, public safety is a number one priority in this city. and it is the number one priority for our mayor and so, today, is a very, very great day as we take this step in topping this public safety building. before i introduce our mayor, as many of you know, when mayor lee ran for office there were three very important things that the mayor said that he was going to do. and one of them was he was going to create jobs. and we all know, all of these projects, we have ordinances, that make sure that we have people on these jobs. and he also is an environmental stewart ship that we would do everything that we can to project our environment and build the green and lead buildings. >> this building will represent that and as i said earlier public safety was his number one priority and without going further, let me introduce the man who has worked very hard to get us to this point, our mayor, ed lee. >> thank you. good morning, everybody, welcome to mission bay. you
for the rest of them. >> i think it makes sense to list some of them. i think the mta, puc and dpw. i think staff might have the best recommendation for which ones to list as well. but definitely mta and puc and dpw. the effective communication especially with the mta is going to be a core competency that we need to highlight. commissioner wiener? >> thank you, mr. chairman. in terms of the timetable, i have a probably similar perspective to commissioner cohen. while we certainly want the fros move forwards expeditiously and efficiently and we don't want to have any unnecessary delays, the most important thing is to cast a wide net and bring any and all potentially interested qualified candidates forward and get it right. it is better to get it right than to get it done fast particularly on deadlines that are frankly not self-evidently better or worse than other deadlines and that are in some ways artificial. it would be great to have an executive director who starts on july 1st. that would be terrific. if it takes, if it means starting august 1st or september 1st in order to be able to cas
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 223 (some duplicates have been removed)